What does it mean when one says that a certain text or teacher "resonates" with him or her? In many contexts, it seems to imply a certain kind of validity; for instance, a member of our local group once tied himself in knots because he found both Rajneesh and Zen to "resonate" with him, even though they are not in agreement.

Is "resonating" a criterion for truth?What on earth is it anyway?

Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

I have thought this also. I often hear people say they are searching for a Buddhist path that agrees with their own interpretation of life/philosophy/path. I've been guilty of this myself but have learnt that I didn't know everything before I started to learn I think, there is a lot of "truth" which I have had to learn to accept and a lot of what I believed to be truth was not truth.

Though I think, for many, it is a good starting point. If you find a path that "resonates" then you'll feel comfortable and IMHO more likely to practice. However, I think, if you find a path which doesn't resonate, you are more likely to have conflictions & doubts and less likely to practice.

When someons says that something resonaes with them, I think it usually means that, while they do not necessarily agree with the whole package, they do recognize some element(s) of truth(s) in it. For example, there are aspects of Christianity that "resonate" with me, even though I am not and could never be a Christian.

Jikan wrote:Dolly Parton's song "Coat of Many Colors" resonates with me. That doesn't mean it's true or real, or that I have some kind of connection with it. It just makes me feel a certain way: it feels true.

Sensations and ideas are subject to karma. This can be referenced in the Dhatus and Indriyas chapters in the Abhidharmakosabhasyam.

How foolish you are, grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention! - Vasubandhu

I don't think that the term has quite the epistemological baggage that you imbue it with - I think that maybe it is often used as a kind of pre-epistemic term.

i.e. Before I really investigate something to see if it is true or not true, I am drawn to investigate that thing and not others. Why that thing? Because I may feel an intuitive kinship or empathy with it, which makes it a seemingly worthwhile object to inquire about.

From a Buddhist pov, I guess it is mainly the processes of the samjnaskandha and samskarahskandha; the latter of which would be inclusive of Mr G's karmic explanation.

I don't see anything problematic about it, unless further epistemic inquiries are not undertaken, so 'resonating with' is the be all and end all of ones relationship to truth and untruth.

Interestingly, the Chinese have long spoken of yuánfèn ("chance of affinity"), which refers to a mysterious binding-force capable of determining the nature and outcome of one's relations and encounters with others. This term has always been associated with the Buddhist notion of karma, which is why some have conceived of this binding-force as a result of one's previous actions, undertaken either in this or previous lifetimes. Unlike karma, however, yuánfèn is purely relational, in that it doesn't refer to individual karma alone, but to the relations which inhere between multiple karmic relata - almost like a novel mode of collective karma. I refer to this as karmic affinity: resonance is like an instantaneous and intuitive sympathy resulting from peculiarly intense alignments of karmic affinity between multiple karmic relata. Insofar as it is intuitive, it is transrational; insofar as it is instantaneous, it is pre-representational; insofar as it is sympathetic, it evokes a sense of mysterious depth; insofar as it is intense, it is experienced in a singularly distinct fashion; insofar as it has to do with karmic affinity, it results from pragmatically rooted agents of real change; insofar as it is multiple, it is irreducible to any single point of analysis. Similar notions might include synchronicity and apophenia. I don't think that this necessarily has to do with truth or untruth in any formal analytical sense - it is transrational, purely experiential.

What is truth anyway?

"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen."- Tommy Smothers

Jikan wrote:Dolly Parton's song "Coat of Many Colors" resonates with me. That doesn't mean...that I have some kind of connection with it.

In light of Mr. G's comment its a pretty big claim you're making: that you perceive the full extent of your karma.

That's a false inference. My point was rather that the feelings I experience when I hear this song are not, in themselves, evidence that the song makes any kind of ultimate truth claim, or that I have some kind of past-life connection to it. It seems more plausible to me, instead, that it evokes certain feelings in me because my mom would sometimes sing it while crotcheting or sewing.

Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

Concordiadiscordi wrote:Interestingly, the Chinese have long spoken of yuánfèn ("chance of affinity"), which refers to a mysterious binding-force capable of determining the nature and outcome of one's relations and encounters with others. This term has always been associated with the Buddhist notion of karma, which is why some have conceived of this binding-force as a result of one's previous actions, undertaken either in this or previous lifetimes. Unlike karma, however, yuánfèn is purely relational, in that it doesn't refer to individual karma alone, but to the relations which inhere between multiple karmic relata - almost like a novel mode of collective karma. I refer to this as karmic affinity: resonance is like an instantaneous and intuitive sympathy resulting from peculiarly intense alignments of karmic affinity between multiple karmic relata. Insofar as it is intuitive, it is transrational; insofar as it is instantaneous, it is pre-representational; insofar as it is sympathetic, it evokes a sense of mysterious depth; insofar as it is intense, it is experienced in a singularly distinct fashion; insofar as it has to do with karmic affinity, it results from pragmatically rooted agents of real change; insofar as it is multiple, it is irreducible to any single point of analysis. Similar notions might include synchronicity and apophenia. I don't think that this necessarily has to do with truth or untruth in any formal analytical sense - it is transrational, purely experiential.

What is truth anyway?

This ^^^ is an interesting post.

The Japanese version of that is go en. It means auspicious connection. It's a euphemism for dependent origination. Apropos of which, I think this is a book you'd enjoy.

books.google.com/books?isbn=1438411634

And here's another one that discusses in further detail some of the points you raise in a Ch'an context:

books.google.com/books?isbn=0791429814

What's truth? Well, there's truth, and then there's truth, and then there's truth...

books.google.com/books?isbn=0895819198

Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

Concordiadiscordi wrote:Interestingly, the Chinese have long spoken of yuánfèn ("chance of affinity"), which refers to a mysterious binding-force capable of determining the nature and outcome of one's relations and encounters with others. This term has always been associated with the Buddhist notion of karma, which is why some have conceived of this binding-force as a result of one's previous actions, undertaken either in this or previous lifetimes. Unlike karma, however, yuánfèn is purely relational, in that it doesn't refer to individual karma alone, but to the relations which inhere between multiple karmic relata - almost like a novel mode of collective karma. I refer to this as karmic affinity: resonance is like an instantaneous and intuitive sympathy resulting from peculiarly intense alignments of karmic affinity between multiple karmic relata. Insofar as it is intuitive, it is transrational; insofar as it is instantaneous, it is pre-representational; insofar as it is sympathetic, it evokes a sense of mysterious depth; insofar as it is intense, it is experienced in a singularly distinct fashion; insofar as it has to do with karmic affinity, it results from pragmatically rooted agents of real change; insofar as it is multiple, it is irreducible to any single point of analysis. Similar notions might include synchronicity and apophenia. I don't think that this necessarily has to do with truth or untruth in any formal analytical sense - it is transrational, purely experiential.

Jikan wrote:What does it mean when one says that a certain text or teacher "resonates" with him or her? In many contexts, it seems to imply a certain kind of validity; for instance, a member of our local group once tied himself in knots because he found both Rajneesh and Zen to "resonate" with him, even though they are not in agreement.

Is "resonating" a criterion for truth?What on earth is it anyway?

To me it just means that someone feels a subjective liking or pull towards a given thing..I don't take it as a statement of objective validity at all..though I admit I do use the term.

rachmiel wrote:The term resonance in physics/music means the tendency of a system to vibrate with more energy at certain frequencies.

If you're in a tiled bathroom, hum a note and that note gets very loud ... it's because you hit a resonant frequency of the room.

To say a person "resonates" with you means that something about them energizes you, sets you in motion.

Yes indeed. Next question: Why do they resonate with you?Often, I think, it's for reasons as mundane as Jikan's:

Jikan wrote:

maybay wrote:

Jikan wrote:Dolly Parton's song "Coat of Many Colors" resonates with me. That doesn't mean...that I have some kind of connection with it.

In light of Mr. G's comment its a pretty big claim you're making: that you perceive the full extent of your karma.

That's a false inference. My point was rather that the feelings I experience when I hear this song are not, in themselves, evidence that the song makes any kind of ultimate truth claim, or that I have some kind of past-life connection to it. It seems more plausible to me, instead, that it evokes certain feelings in me because my mom would sometimes sing it while crotcheting or sewing.

If we don't know remember or notice the positive associations we have already made with (e.g.) a song or a person, we are more likely to make a vague assertion that it/they "resonate" with us. (In terms of rachmiel's post, we have been pre-tuned to that [resonant] frequency. )Of course, it is also possible that we established those positive associations in previous lives ... but I don't like to spend too much time speculating on matters of which I can know nothing.

I think Kim said it better than I did. To go back to my silly example, my appreciation for a song that resonates with me in precisely the way rachmiel put it is inadequate evidence in itself for past-life karmic affiliation. It just means there's something about it that makes me feel a certain way. That feeling isn't something I need to act on, and it doesn't mean (necessarily) that it holds a truth for me. It might, though. (in the case of that song, it does reflect a truth about living in poverty.)

Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

Concordiadiscordi wrote:Interestingly, the Chinese have long spoken of yuánfèn ("chance of affinity"), which refers to a mysterious binding-force capable of determining the nature and outcome of one's relations and encounters with others. This term has always been associated with the Buddhist notion of karma, which is why some have conceived of this binding-force as a result of one's previous actions, undertaken either in this or previous lifetimes. Unlike karma, however, yuánfèn is purely relational, in that it doesn't refer to individual karma alone, but to the relations which inhere between multiple karmic relata - almost like a novel mode of collective karma. I refer to this as karmic affinity: resonance is like an instantaneous and intuitive sympathy resulting from peculiarly intense alignments of karmic affinity between multiple karmic relata. Insofar as it is intuitive, it is transrational; insofar as it is instantaneous, it is pre-representational; insofar as it is sympathetic, it evokes a sense of mysterious depth; insofar as it is intense, it is experienced in a singularly distinct fashion; insofar as it has to do with karmic affinity, it results from pragmatically rooted agents of real change; insofar as it is multiple, it is irreducible to any single point of analysis. Similar notions might include synchronicity and apophenia. I don't think that this necessarily has to do with truth or untruth in any formal analytical sense - it is transrational, purely experiential.

What is truth anyway?

This ^^^ is an interesting post.

The Japanese version of that is go en. It means auspicious connection. It's a euphemism for dependent origination. Apropos of which, I think this is a book you'd enjoy.

books.google.com/books?isbn=1438411634

And here's another one that discusses in further detail some of the points you raise in a Ch'an context:

books.google.com/books?isbn=0791429814

What's truth? Well, there's truth, and then there's truth, and then there's truth...

books.google.com/books?isbn=0895819198

Thank you for the suggested readings, they all look incredibly interesting.

In reference to systems theory, you might find the following publication to be of some interest:

Jikan wrote:What does it mean when one says that a certain text or teacher "resonates" with him or her? In many contexts, it seems to imply a certain kind of validity; for instance, a member of our local group once tied himself in knots because he found both Rajneesh and Zen to "resonate" with him, even though they are not in agreement.

Is "resonating" a criterion for truth?What on earth is it anyway?

It means something that one is drawn to practise and can apply with a natural enthusiasm and conviction. Sure, it's basically the result of samsaric bias, sometimes accrued over many lifetimes, and there is no guaranteee that one reasonates with skilful things, but when one does it's a very useful and powerful thing.

"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hellI would endure it for myriad lifetimes As your companion in practice" --- Gandavyuha Sutra

Jikan wrote:What does it mean when one says that a certain text or teacher "resonates" with him or her?

In the context of Buddhism and Buddhist practice, I think it means that they find it helpful. "I find that teacher helpful" vs "That teacher resonates with me". I think one say they both mean the nearly the same thing.

One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!

Kim O'Hara wrote:If we don't know remember or notice the positive associations we have already made with (e.g.) a song or a person, we are more likely to make a vague assertion that it/they "resonate" with us. (In terms of rachmiel's post, we have been pre-tuned to that [resonant] frequency. ) Of course, it is also possible that we established those positive associations in previous lives ... but I don't like to spend too much time speculating on matters of which I can know nothing.

To conclude that resonance is simply a conditioned response -- a bell that triggers an unconscious memory-based association in a particular brain/mind -- might be selling resonance short.

Perhaps resonance is, at times, an insight into truth. It's the ground that resonates, and this resonance is perceived by the particular brain/mind.

I don't know the Buddhist terms for truth, ground, or particular brain/mind, but you get the point ja?